U.S. tariff architecture continues to deepen in complexity. Yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives, while likely to end in a presidential veto, was intended to terminate the national emergency declaration used to justify certain tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA.
These steps are separate from the review currently before the Supreme Court. However, they underline the growing resistance to the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers for trade policy.
At the centre of the legal challenge sits an unlikely name: V.O.S. Selections, a small New York wine importer, now co-titled on the Supreme Court docket alongside Learning Resources, an educational products company. What began as a commercial dispute over import duties has evolved into a direct test of how far executive authority can extend in trade policy.
V.O.S. Selections now joins that small group of companies whose relevance far exceeds their size, not unlike Four Seasons Total Landscaping during the 2020 election aftermath. An otherwise anonymous wine importer has become the procedural vehicle for what may prove to be a defining case on the limits of emergency economic power in the United States.
How We Got Here
Under IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act, the President may declare a national emergency unilaterally. That declaration does not require prior approval from Congress. Congress retains the power to terminate the emergency through a joint resolution, though such a measure must survive a presidential veto or achieve an override.
Following the imposition of tariffs under that authority, affected importers filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging the President’s ability to impose tariffs via IEEPA.
The Court of International Trade ruled that the statute does not clearly grant that power. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed that IEEPA does not unambiguously authorise the imposition of tariffs. The Federal Circuit stayed its mandate pending further appeal.
The tariffs remain in place pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
Structural Importance
The Supreme Court is not deciding whether there is an emergency. It is deciding whether the statute permits tariffs as a tool under emergency powers.
IEEPA has not historically been used in this fashion. It has traditionally served as a mechanism to block or freeze assets, restrict financial transactions, prohibit specific imports or exports, and impose sanctions on foreign entities. It has not functioned as a general tariff statute.
If the Court rules that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, then even a valid emergency would not support their continued use.
A ruling against the administration would carry several consequences:
- Potential refund obligations for duties already collected
• Treasury cash management implications
• A policy pivot toward alternative tariff authorities such as Section 232 or Section 301
• A period of trade relief potentially followed by re-imposition under alternative statutes
The ultimate scale of any repayment claims would depend on the scope of the ruling, including how broadly relief is applied and which importers have properly preserved their claims. Even partial repayment exposure could run into the billions of dollars.
A number of companies have already initiated proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade. The filings are designed to ensure that duty payments remain legally contestable should the tariff authority become invalid.
A ruling upholding the tariffs would reinforce a broad interpretation of executive emergency power and likely embolden this and future administrations to rely more heavily on emergency statutes as trade tools.
Either outcome represents a significant inflection point in the balance between executive authority and congressional control over trade policy.
Important Disclaimer –
This article is intended for general information purposes only and reflects the market environment at the time of writing. It does not constitute investment advice, a personal recommendation, or an offer to engage in any trading activity. The content does not take into account individual objectives or circumstances and should not be relied upon as the basis for any investment decision. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.
Content may have been created by persons who have, have previously had, or may in the future have personal interests in securities or other financial products referred to therein. All conflicts and potential conflicts relating to our business are managed in accordance with our conflicts of interest policy. For more information, please refer to our Summary of Conflicts of Interest Policy.
For more information and important risk disclosures, please see our Derivative Product Trading Notes and Privacy Policy. AMT Futures Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.